Parliament Rules Challenge

The House of Representatives met in Kathmandu at 10:00am with several bills on its agenda, including proposals on Nepal Act amendments and health sciences legislation. The article does not report a new court ruling, but it confirms the legislative process continued while the rules challenge remained unresolved.

The House of Representatives unanimously passed the Bill to Revive Provisions of Some Nepal Acts, 2083 after debating its principles. The bill now moves to the concerned parliamentary committee for further consideration.

The House of Representatives unanimously passed the Bill to Revive Provisions of Some Nepal Acts, 2083 after debating its principles. The bill now moves to the concerned parliamentary committee for further consideration.

The House of Representatives unanimously passed the Bill to Revive Provisions of Some Nepal Acts, 2083 after debating its principles. The bill now moves to the concerned parliamentary committee for further consideration.

The House of Representatives tabled six other bills on September 28, including amendments to health and safety laws and a bill related to the Ramraja Prasad Singh Academy of Health Sciences. The article does not report any new development in the Supreme Court challenge to the House rules.

The government presented the Bill to Revive Provisions of Certain Nepal Laws, 2083 in the House of Representatives to fill a legal vacuum left after an ordinance became ineffective. The bill was introduced by Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Sobita Gautam on behalf of the prime minister.

Nepali lawmakers again debated judicial independence and impeachment powers, after an RSP MP proposed a special committee to investigate judges’ assets and potentially pursue impeachment over controversial verdicts. Constitutional experts said parliament cannot debate cases under judicial consideration except through the impeachment process.

An opinion piece said Rastriya Swatantra Party lawmakers had repeatedly attacked the judiciary after the Constitutional Bench halted changes to the House regulations. It warned that such criticism could intimidate judges and weaken judicial independence.

Both houses of Nepal’s Federal Parliament adjourned on Thursday and are scheduled to reconvene on Monday, September 28. The House of Representatives had routine bill business on its agenda, while the Supreme Court’s suspension of disputed rules remained in force.

Rastriya Swatantra Party lawmakers criticized Nepal’s judiciary in the House of Representatives, accusing courts of using interim orders to obstruct government reforms and constrain parliament’s powers. Legal experts said judicial reform may be needed, but warned against political pressure that could weaken separation of powers.

Rastriya Swatantra Party and CPN-UML lawmakers clashed in the House of Representatives over judicial restructuring, judges’ asset investigations, and a parliamentary mechanism to study court verdicts. The exchange highlighted continuing tension over how far Parliament can discuss the judiciary while the court challenge to the rules remained unresolved.

Commentary on Nepal’s Constitution’s 11th anniversary said unresolved implementation gaps and the amendment process remain central political issues. The article framed the court dispute as part of a broader debate over whether changes to core provisions can proceed without consensus.

Legal experts said the Supreme Court’s interim suspension of Rule 140(11) and Rule 259 left Parliament without a clear procedural route for a constitutional amendment bill. They said Article 274 still supplies the constitutional basis, but the voting method remains unsettled.

An editorial said the Supreme Court’s interim order had halted two House Rules 2026 provisions that elevated the rules above the constitution. It urged the Rastriya Swatantra Party to respect the suspension and resolve the dispute through parliamentary debate.

The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench issued an interim order halting Rule 140(11) and Rule 259 of the House of Representatives Regulations, 2083. The order keeps the provisions in abeyance until the final verdict and restores the earlier parliamentary procedure.

Nepal’s Supreme Court temporarily put Rule 140(11) and Rule 259 of the House of Representatives Rules 2026 in abeyance. The court said the provisions appeared inconsistent with the constitution, including a change that could have eased constitutional amendments by using combined votes from both chambers.

Nepal’s Supreme Court temporarily put Rule 140(11) and Rule 259 of the House of Representatives Rules 2026 in abeyance. The court said the provisions appeared inconsistent with the constitution, including a change that could have eased constitutional amendments by using combined votes from both chambers.

Kamaladevi Pant and others filed a challenge to two House of Representatives Rules 2026 provisions, arguing they could improperly affect constitutional amendment procedure. The case set up the Supreme Court dispute over whether the disputed rules conflict with the constitution.

A task force led by Asim Shah submitted a constitutional amendment debate paper to the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers Office, and the government has kept it under review for two months. The paper proposes broad changes across electoral, judicial, and governance provisions, but it is not directly part of the Supreme Court rule freeze dispute.